Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Why I will not vote for Mitt Romney, version 3.0

I've been roundly taken to task in the comments here when I say that we're better off with a Republican Congress and Obama as President than we are with a Republican Congress and Mitt Romney as President.  Well, once more into the breach, dear friends.

I lived in Massachusetts when Mitt was Governor.  I got to watch him for years.  I think I know how he thinks.  It's said that a firebrand must eat fire, even if he must kindle it himself (as we see with Obama encouraging anti-semitic Occupy Wall Street protesters saying things not considered fit for polite society since World War II).  Mitt isn't a firebrand, he's a policy wonk.

Well, how much Policy can a Policy Wonk wonk, if a Policy Wonk could wonk policy?  Quite a lot, actually:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

December 7, 2005
ROMNEY ANNOUNCES STRICT NEW CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1

Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.

...

In the development of greenhouse gas policy, Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts. These include John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy ...
He looks for "problems" that a well-run Government can "solve" by judicious application of policy wonkery.  And who are the policy advisors he is pleased to help his team of expert wonkers winnow the policy wheat from the chaff?

The man who President Obama chose to run his Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Oh, but that's just a one-off, a "black swan" - I mean, it'd never happen again.  Right?  Oh, wait:
It’s no secret that Mitt Romney’s universal-health-care program in Massachusetts was the model for President Obama’s federal law, but the relationship was even tighter than previously known. White House visitor logs show that three Romney aides paid Obama’s team at least a dozen visits, and had at least one meeting with the president himself to help plan the health-care legislation.
The difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is a matter of degree, not of kind.  They are both aggressively expansionist in their view of Government's proper role.  Obama admittedly goes further (some might say much further, but I'm not at all sure about that), but that just describes the length of the vector.  Both point in the same direction.

And so again, let me say that this Republic will be better off with a Republican Congress and Barack Obama putting his Italian loafers on the Oval Office desk for another four years.  The Republican Congress will aggressively resist Obama's every plan, being (rightly) suspicious of his every motive.  That same Republican Congress will not rein in a Romney Administration, feeling the need to "go along to get along".

Romney is likely to be at least moderately successful (at least initially), and so we can expect the sum of wonkish legislation to be formidable indeed.  Looking at Mitt's disastrous legacy in Massachusetts, we will be in a deep pit of fail indeed.

Romney doesn't get it, what we feel in our bones:
In the minds of likely voters, Washington, not Wall Street, is primarily to blame for the financial crisis and the subsequent recession.
He thinks that you can eat yourself thin.  Because a Wonk needs to wonk.  And so this Republic must be running short of really smart policy.

Sure, Obama will have the opportunity to appoint judges, and Justices to the Supreme Court.  That sucks.  But it's unlikely to shift the makeup of the court, as it's the liberal Justices who will retire first.  Would I rather have more Scalias and Thomases?  Sure.  But dig this:

Mitt won't appoint any.

He'll appoint another David Souter.  We don't win this, however it plays out.

We may be screwed either way, but I for one refuse to go gentile into that Dark Night of Statism.  A Stupid Party loss in what should be the easiest election of the last 50 years may shock them out of their complacency.  Maybe not.  But energized, divided government beats what Governor Vector will serve up.

Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.  Especially this tag:


20 comments:

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not voting for Obama-Lite either, no matter how good his hair is.

If Mitt wins and does a good job, despite my expectations, great. He'll do it without me pulling the lever for him.

ASM826 said...

Converting to Judaism before the Dark Night of Statism, are you?

Dirk said...

I knew I didn't want Romney, if only because of his health-care program. Your series of posts have now cemented my opposition. You're completely right: If Romney and Obama both were to propose the identical legislation, a Republican Congress would pass Romney's and oppose Obama's - just because of who proposed it, not on the merits of the legislation itself!

Cain is sounding better and better all the time, even if his 9/9/9 plan might be a bit on the naive side. It's a step in the right direction, towards streamlining the tax code. Unfortunately, he, like far too many people, don't understand a simple concept:

Corporations don't pay taxes.

And I'm sure I don't have to explain that here, but I will if asked.

ASM826 said...

Dirk,

Twice in the past week I've found myself in a discussion where there was no choice but to say it and then explain it, "Corporations don't pay taxes."

There's two of us! It's a movement.

Josh Kruschke said...

I'm afraid I'm going to snap, and go off on the first person that says, "I voted for him, but this isn't the agenda I thought he'd push."

The Czar of Muscovy said...

Hey, only one objection to this post, and it's more of a minor nitpick. One of the truest dangers Obama poses is that he doesn't give a damn about Congress: he legislates unconsitutionally by fiat, thanks to his political appointments and executive orders.

No, this isn't to say Mitt wouldn't do exactly the same thing (especially now the precedent has been set), but the nitpick is that a Republican Congress cannot stop EVERY move by Obama. Heck a split Congress largely opposes Obama on many issues, but they can't stop him because he doesn't go through them as he's supposed to.

That's it--nothing else to jump on! :)

Scott said...

While you are dead-on about Romney, you are putting too much faith in a Republican Congress putting up any kind of resistance. You will still have the likes of Mitch McConnel, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, and John Boehner sitting in leadership positions, and they will not stand up to the President be he Romney or Obama (spit).

Divemedic said...

Dirk: The 9-9-9 plan is unconstitutional. A national sales tax is a direct tax that is not apportioned. It would require a constitutional amendment, and we all know how well the 16th Amendment turned out. I am against any new tax plan that does not call for a repeal of the 16th Amendment, lest we get an income tax AND a sales tax.

Boat Guy said...

While you have convinced me that Romney would be as bad - or worse - than ObaMao, The Czar has a point; I'm far from sanguine about the "leadership" exercised by the likes of McConnel, Boehner et al. I'd feel far better if West, Ryan and Co. could be the shot-callers.
A second ObaMao term could be the emetic the Republic needs, God Help Us...

Stephen said...

Again, I could not agree more...thanks.

Borepatch said...

Divemedic, I believe that you may be right.

Anonymous said...

Vote them all out...Every damn one of them!!

If Obama or Romney is/are/will be our next pResident and the current crop of career politicians stay in office...

I have my eye on a remote piece of land, enough stone, rock and timber to build and will go into hiding...

Bleh......

Repuplikans...
Dhimmicraps...
Politicians...
They all suxor..

Ken said...

I've come to support Cthulhu's foreign policy of devouring everyone and destroying everything, although I'm less sanguine about his domestic policy of devouring everyone and destroying everything.

Still better than Slick Willard, though.

The Czar of Muscovy said...

I thought Divemedic may have been correct, but it turns out--apparently--under Article 1 Section 8 that a national sales tax could be set provided it was uniform throughout the entire country. In other words, states can't modify the federal tax, and there couldn't be any growling about local cost of living adjustments.

But Divemedic points out why, fundamentally, a national sales tax might not actually get past the House.

This may also be moot, since there is some whispering that Cain might be willing to drop the idea since the focus groups are coming back very negative on a national sales tax.

We'll soon find out.

Dirk said...

Constitutional or not, naive or not, at least his plan has generated a lot of discussion, and has gotten Cain noticed. Plus, it demonstrates that he's willing to try some unconventional ideas, instead of slightly tweaking the status quo.

Is he electable? No telling. He could always self-destruct along the way. The pressure he's putting on the other candidates can only be a good thing, though.

Josh Kruschke said...

It's easier to hold Congresses feet to the fire, and they do need to take back control of the purse strings. the executive can't do an end run around if the money dries up.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

If not a 9-9-9, I'd be happy with a 16-16.

NotClauswitz said...

Mitt Romney is a spider-in-a-suit. He'll bite, and then your leg will swell-up like a balloon and the only meds at the Free Clinic are asprin, no cola.
Vote them ALL out.

Toaster 802 said...

I think we are f@cked any way we shake it. There will just be less stink about it from normal folks with a soothing Romney (GWB lite) in office than an overt Marxist.

In the words of Han Solo, "I'd prefer a straight up fight to all this sneaking around..."

Frodo Baggins: "Mitt, where have you been?"

Mitt (Gollum) Romney: "Sneaking!!"

bluesun said...

So, should I write in Mickey Mouse or Yosemite Sam? In the words of one Strong Bad (paraphrased and altered, of course) "so many choices, so few... good choices."